(first: the cross posting _is_ necessary, see why below, but please keep discussion at debian-doc since it belongs there IMHO)
I'm curious, why the heck is not debian-doc consulted (or CCed) whenever
debian-legal starts discussing documentation licenses. It could be nice,
if only to ask for opinions of the DDP project.
I have read the start of the thread [1] after reading the
(not-yet-published) latest DWN, and I'm starting to think we are having a
"fix problems with a hammer" issue (you know, the saying "when you have a
hammer everything looks like a nail").
You see, the DFSG is just that: the Debian Free _Software_ Guidelines. Why
on earth are we comparing documentation licenses with a _software_
licenses' guideline? It makes no sense.
It is my opinion that Debian should produce the Debian Free
_Documentation_ Guidelines which need not be related to the current DFSG
(but could use some tips from it, obviously).
I am willing to produce such a draft but _only_ if people stop throwing
the DFSG against document writers. It does _not_ apply, we need to write a
new set of guidelines.
Regards
Javi
PS: From my point of view, Invariant sections are perfectly ok when you
are talking about non-technical related issues (example: author's opinions
in an article)
PPS: Btw the argument by Walter Landry on the GFDL not be DFSG-free
because of : "(...) The GFDL doesn't allow this, which counts as a use
restriction. (...)" [2] is moot since there is nothing about that "use
restriction" in the DFSG. Clause 5/6 talk about "no discriminitaion"
agains persons or fields of endeavor. Obfuscated code, for example, might
make it difficult to use a program in a given environment but it's not
restriciting it per license. Obfuscated code can be DFSG-free
[1]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00285.html
[2]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00287.html
pgpicrKmM84FL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
